From the Boing Boing Shop

Follow Us

Leah Rothman was a segment director on the Dr Phil show for 12 years, until (she says) she and her co-workers were locked in a room by Dr Phil and screamed at and threatened by the show's host, who was upset by leaks from the show's staff.

Before leaving the show, Rothman used her phone to capture a nine-second video from the show's archives, to use as evidence in a lawsuit alleging emotional distress and false imprisonment.

Dr Phil's company retaliated by registering a copyright in the nine-second clip and then sued her for infringement for having made her evidentiary video.

Here's where the crappy judge comes in. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is a District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas -- the favorite court of America's bottom-feeding patent trolls, which is how Gilstrap came to hear an astonishing 20% of all patent cases in America.

Gilstrap never met an abusive practice he didn't love. When Dr Phil's people brought their ridiculous infringement claim to his courtroom, he ruled in their favor, producing the most incoherent, bizarre fair use ruling I can recall, and that's a crowded field.

Mike Masnick has done the important work of tearing Gilstrap's absurd ruling to shreds. Here's a brief quote from his masterful analysis:

So let's go through Judge Gilstrap's fair use four factors analysis. First up -- the purpose and character of the use -- which looks into the nature of the use, whether it was transformative and whether it was for commercial use. Again, to me, this seems quite clear: the purpose had nothing to do with the reason the work was created in the first place, making it obviously transformative. But, Judge Gilstrap wades into swampy waters by claiming that because Rothman obtained the video via "bad faith" it's not.

Rothman did not copy to then educate the masses or to further the greater good. She copied to aid her pending lawsuit seeking money damages where she is the only plaintiff and sole potential beneficiary. It is possible that a breach of contract or some other act of bad faith may sometimes be necessary to further an important public interest and therefore such conduct might not always weigh against fair use. However, there is a difference between a defendant who “purloins” a private manuscript or confidential video for personal gain and one who obtains, or even misappropriates, materials of significant public interest.... Here, there is no countervailing public interest because Rothman copied the work at issue “solely” for use in her own lawsuit.

This seems wrong on multiple levels. He points mainly to other cases where "bad faith" was an issue, mainly Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, in which The Nation published a large excerpt of Gerald Ford's memoir, and it was deemed not to be fair use, in part because of the Nation's own actions and intent. But, in that case, it was clear that what the Nation had done was to publish the excerpt from the book to reveal what was in the book and to undermine the sales of the actual book. In other words, it was in competition with the book.

In this case, the intent was to use it as evidence. That has nothing to do with the copyright aspect.
Similarly, Judge Gilstrap's weird focus in claiming that she was the "sole potential beneficiary" and there was nothing here to "further an important public interest" also seems... just wrong. Rothman's effort was to expose what she felt was dangerous behavior by a very public figure. How is that not furthering the public interest?

Gilstrap notes other cases where "bad faith" harms fair use rulings, but the "bad faith" is always about infringing the copyright. Here, he seems to be arguing that the "bad faith" is... because she wanted to prove something bad about Dr. Phil. I can't even see how that's "bad faith" at all.

Every three years, the US Copyright Office creates temporary exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ban on breaking DRM, provided that people can show that they've been prevented from doing something customary and legitimate with their own property.

In Did Congress Really Expect Us to Whittle Our Own Personal Jailbreaking Tools? -- a new post on EFF's Deeplinks blog -- I describe the bizarre, unfair and increasingly salient US Copyright Office DMCA exemptions process, which is underway right now.

It's been 72 hours since Google Images removed the "View Image" and (the even more essential) "Search By Image" buttons from its search-results; now you can just install a browser extension (Firefox, Chrome).

Going back to school isn’t necessarily an option for everyone. Between the time commitments and steep tuition rates, there are obstacles aplenty as far as furthering education is concerned. However, that’s not to say it’s impossible to learn new skills. Excel with Business lets users access thousands of hours of online learning in Microsoft, business, technology, […]

More often than not, you won’t see an accident coming, which means it pays to be proactive and ensure you have the right tools on-hand before you need them. Whether you find yourself in the middle of a power outage or having car trouble at night, you can make sure you’re still capable of navigating […]

Trains may not be the most popular means of conveyance nowadays, but chances are you grew up playing with toy trains or building a model set to wrap around the Christmas tree. In either case, it’s safe to say that locomotives have long carried a unique sense of awe and scale, especially when they’re hundreds […]